Response_to_order_to_show_cause_re_proof_of_serviceResponseCal. Super. - 1st Dist.April 6, 2016[ — 9 R B R E E N o o o = o n W w N y A w y Brian L. Larsen, Esq. (SB# 158252) Thuy M. Le, Esq. (SB 263000) ELECTRONICALLY Marrianne B. Sioson, Esq. (SB# 286045) FILED LAW OFFICES OF BRIAN L. LARSEN Superior Court of California, 530 Jackson Street, 2™ Floor County of San Francisco San Francisco, CA 94133 12/15/2017 Clerk of the Court (415) 398-5000 BY-KALENE APGLONIO Deputy Clerk Attorney for Plaintiffs TORRANCE SCALES INTHE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO (LIMITED JURISDICTION TORRANCE SCALES, ) Case No.: CGC-16-551332 ) } RESPONSE TO ORDER TO SHOW Plaintiffs, J CAUSE RE: PROOF OF SERVICE i. J Date: January 16,2018 } Time: 10:30am ) Dept: 610 ADOLFO PEREZ-BAMACA, and DOES ). I to 10, inclusive, ) ) Defendants. J 3 I, Brian L. Laisen declare; 1. Tam an attorney at law duly licensed to practice in the State of California. nd am the attorney of record for plaintiff herein, 2 We have re-filed our publication request as of 12/4/17, 3. Consistent with Section 575 2, the California Supreme Court has held that a trial court may not dismiss an action when violations of the court's orders are the fault of counsel rather than the party, Garcia v. MeCutchen, 16 Cal.4™ 469 (1997). The Garcia case Plaintiffs Atlorney’s Declaration Dated: December 15 , 2017 involved, like here, a personal injury lawsuit, and this case was dismissed base on violations of the court’s local rules, Plaintiff's counsel had failed to appear at multiple status conference hearings and failed to file and serve papers addressing the status of such things as serving the complaint and filing a proof of service. As a result, the trial court dismissed the case based on counsel's failure to appear and violation of court rules. The Court of Appeal reversed the trial court’s decision, holding that Code of Civil Procedure Section 575.2(b) prohibits dismissal as a sanction for noncompliance with local court rules. Garcia, at 474. The California Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeal’s reversal on the same grounds, Garcia, at 479. I respectfully request that the OSC scheduled for January 16, 2018 at 10:30am be continued for an additional 90 days. I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct. BRIAN L. LARSEN Attorney for Plaintiffs Plaintiff's Attorney’s Declaration
